Says Jay Samit, EMI's "New media" (read: copy protection whore) VP,
If CDs were as hard to copy as DVDs or VHS tapes or even books, we would not be going through anything like what we're going through now with Napster or Gnutella
DVDs? Excuse me? I know of no seven line perl program that can rip a CD. DVDs, on the other hand...
seriously if all the record company "New media" guys have this level of genius, we have NOTHING to worry about.
It could have been a troll, who knows. Like I mentioned, the message is the same whether it is a troll or not. There are plenty of people, I'm sure, who share the belief that moderation is dangerously close to censorship. And it is up to us to silence those people. Just kidding.
I think it's pretty clear that a large portion of/. readers would disagree with your comment. Doesn't the fact that this comment was modded up show that opposing viewpoints can make it here? No system's perfect, of course, and the/. system does tend to encourage people to go along with the crowd.. does this mean moderation systems in general should not be used?
Personally I disagree with your comment, but I would still mod it up. Sure, it could be a troll - but does this change your message? Should the poster's intent, as opposed to the actual content, matter? I will also respond to your arguments.
Your comment is flawed from top to bottom by the assumption that all media is, or will be controlled by corporate interests. It is true that corporations control a great deal of our media today, never mind in 20 years. This control does influence our culture more than any other factor. But did/. start out commercially? You seem to be assuming that no other moderated forums will ever pop up after/. and k5.
When enough people are fed up with corporate influence of one site, a new one will be created. Unless free speech on the Internet is stifled (I guess this could happen, though) there will always be a place to speak your mind and hear others' views without being subjected to countless trolls and goatse.cx links.
I am assuming that since you disagree with moderation, you browse at -1 and hide the scores on comments. As of this post, your comment is at 4. Like I said, while I disagree with your views I would never mod your comment down. Remember that moderation is a work in progress and is in its infancy. As long as the goal is to promote civil discussion without silencing anyone's viewpoints, moderation systems are really the only good solution.
At the bottom of any Yahoo! news story, you can "discuss" the story with your fellow netizens. Please visit a story there, preferably on a controversial or incendiary topic, and see what people are "discussing" there. You will find name-calling, racism, and downright ugliness in EVERY discussion you look at there. This, folks, is what we would have if not for moderation.
Looking at it from a cost perspective, they must have figured that it would cost less than putting up some 'birds', or hooking up to a wireless network on the ground. Satellites really can't provide high speed Internet access to something as low-powered as a handheld device.. to get your signal 50,000 feet you will need more juice than a GSM phone, though. I guess if you really really need wireless broadband access, you could pay for this.
Not that I would subscribe to this kind of thing. With the rate that unique services like this are abandoned, I wouldn't want to be stuck with a $1,000 "cone-shaped antenna" that's only good for a paper weight. Just look at Iridium. Keeping a bunch of planes in the sky 24 hours a day isn't exactly low-maintenance service..
Nine years ago, who would have dreamt that the enemy of users and IT managers alike would be released upon the world by that nice little software company called Microsoft? This enemy, of course, is the f$%^# PAPER CLIP.
We all had visions that by the year 2000, HAL-9000 would be talking us through even the most complex computing tasks.. but here in 2001, if you want your text to wrap around a picture in Microsoft Word, you need a freakin' PAPER CLIP to talk you through the grueling ordeal.
If that isn't true innovation, well, I'm dumbfounded. It sure came out of left field, at least.
It would still be very surprising if this kind of thing holds up in court. I doubt anyone will spend the $$$ to go through all this hassle..
You have to pay court fees and pay for representation, obtain a court order for the ISP to give you contact info, and pay someone to serve the spammer with papers.
At this point, the judge may very well throw the case out unless you prove actual monetary damages. You can't put a sign on your door that says anyone who knocks on it has to pay $100, and I don't see this any differently.
Even assuming you win in court, the vast likelihood is you'll never get paid. It is now YOUR responsibility to collect your debt, the court will not help you at all. You will have to locate the spammer's assets and determine what can be seized, try to find their bank accounts, or garnish their wages.
All these hassles should dissuade most people from taking this course of action.
The software that comes with the Memory stick audio players (music clip) will convert MP3 to ATRAC.. I'm sure they will bundle the same software with this unit. I've never used it, but I think I read that the software will convert your MP3's to ATRAC, and then it will delete your MP3's? The conversion process is also very time consuming. I understand Sony's need for a secure music format, but everything I've read about the memory stick players like the audio clip says it's a pain in the ass to get your MP3's onto the thing.
If ISPs don't help you track down the source of spam, then they will quickly find themselves on either MAPS or ORBS.
Wrong. ISPs are under no obligation to give you any information in order to stay out of the MAPS RBL. All they have to do is deal with spam problems, including killing spammers' accts, killing spamvertised web sites, not provide spam support services, etc. ORBS, as you apparently are unaware of, is an automated system for tracking open relays. ORBS has no information as to whether ISPs are cooperative or not. It doesn't even list ISPs that generate spam, only open relays.
ISPs aren't required by anyone to help you "track down the source of spam." Their only duty is to deal with spammers' accounts themselves. You even contradict yourself later on when you say "you are advocating a commercial entity supplies you with the names and addresses of it's customers?!! Pleaze". It is a huge invasion of privacy for any ISP to help you track down one of their customers. The problem is theirs to deal with, not yours. Unless there is a court order (I don't think small claims court can issue subpoenas) an ISP SHOULDN'T give you a spammer's name or address.
I'm real happy for you and your Asian ISP, but I hope you understand that's the exception, not the rule. I have LART'ed a LOT of spam from China, and have never received a personal response or a confirmed kill.
This is basically the purpose of CAUCE, which has worked with senators and representatives before to draft anti-spam bills. There have already been a few bills, none of which passed. They range from satisfactory to unacceptable.
There have been bills that effectively legitimize spam, and ones that basically prevent it. HR 95, which is in committee right now, is a very good anti-spam bill.
There are many, many anti-spammers working on a solution, and if the solution to spam were this simple it would have been done years ago. It would be real tough for the "processing fee" part to hold up. I'm assuming this notice would be sent during the SMTP session, which means the spammer would never actually read it, which seems like a pretty solid argument in court. If I give someone a contract, they actually have to sign it before it is valid.
Also, ISPs have no legal obligation to help you find a spammer's real name/address. They don't benefit from helping you at all, so why would they cooperate?
Also, this wouldn't work for mail sent through open relays (since the open relay sees your SMTP notice, not the actual spammer), or mail sent from other countries. How are you going to take a Chinese spammer to small claims court?
There have been plenty of flaws in Microsoft products that took the company a few months to publicly acknowledge, such as that nasty one where people could execute code using a buffer overflow in Outlook.. I guess they can use this secret society to communicate with partners about flaws without admitting their guilt to the world.
I'm fed up with posts on every story about spam, napster, or some other sort of internet freedom, accusing the stereotypical "slashdot libertarian" of hypocrisy. "You're pro-napster, pro-deCSS, pro-GPL, but you're anti-spam and you actually want to protect the copyright on works you create? What a hypocrite!"
I know I'm replying to a troll, but plenty of people are serious when they write this kind of stuff.
1. You can't make a generalization of the/. audience. We're all individuals, and we don't all share the same views on every issue.
2. The Napster, DeCSS, spam, and GPL issues are only similar on a superficial level. Boiling my beliefs down to "information wants to be free" is a great oversimplification of the issues. Napster != spam. The fact that I believe Napster will ultimately result in a better variety of music for the consumer, as well as the demise of the record industry, doesn't force me to support spam! Spam is an invasion of my privacy, and an abuse of the public network, simple as that.
Don't label me a hypocrite because my opinions should either totally agree with "information wants to be free," or not agree with it at all.
There is really no reason for this to be on the main page of slashdot. The site is poorly written and contains much outdated and incorrect info. There are plenty of better anti-spam resources on the web.
This site advocates threatening spammers (telling them that you sent them a tarantula? excuse me?), and replying to spam, both of which should never be done. It also says you should threaten to mailbomb them. The information is outdated - this site talks about Cyber Promotions, which is long-dead. It also mentions some of the failed US spam bills as current legislation.
Finally, the site is against spam laws. While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, a vast majority of legitimate anti-spammers believe legislation is the answer, just like legislation is the answer to junk faxes and telephone harassment.
This really doesn't belong on slashdot. Can we have some sort of editorial discretion here, please?
I remember a previous story about this type of thing, inappropriate blocking of sites, which ran a while back. I went to peacefire.org and looked at the list of sites, as well as the screenshots of sites being blocked. Then I went to the CyberNOT search engine and checked if the sites were listed. In every case, Cyberpatrol said it was not blocking the site in question.
I just ran these new sites through the search engine, and again Cyberpatrol claims it's not blocking the sites! They must monitor these reports really closely, and quickly remove sites from the list when there's a question about how appropriate it is to block them.
This all ties in with their refusal to let people browse the contents of their lists. You could claim they're practicing corporate censorship, but really it just looks like incompetence on their parts, since they are banning sites regardless of political party.
There's a reason Amazon.com has been named Spamazon in anti-spam discussions. They have repeatedly ignored unsubscribe requests, they have even spammed customers who indicated they didn't want to receive e-mail in the first place.
Between their general cluelessness about spam, and the whole patent fiasco, it's really not a good place to shop. They don't get my business.
This is an example that indicates a larger problem. Corporate spam is tough to deal with, becase ISPs are unwilling to enforce their AUP against large customers like online stores. Notable past and present corporate spammers include Amazon, Real, Insight (very bad), and MicroWarehouse.
My macroeconomics course was taught by a very left-leaning economist.. he actually believed the rich should be taxed more, not less. I agree with him. Looking at income tax alone, the system appears progressive (higher income = a higher tax bracket). However, you have to factor in non-progressive taxes.
There are many taxes we all pay, regardless of our income. These include sales taxes, excise (gasoline, liquor, cigarettes, etc), and don't forget the lottery! A disproportionate amount of poor people play the lottery (read: state-sponsored gambling) which accounts for a great deal of tax money for states.
When you look at the numbers, poorer people pay a much higher percentage of their income towards these taxes.
GWB's idea is broken and it's typical of old-style republican thinking. I'd be all for a candidate who wanted to end our unfair taxation of the poor.
I'm a UMass student. They would most likely support either Windows or MacOS. They allow you to use almost anything you want (there are many linux people here) but there is a very limited set of applications the helpdesk supports (Netscape or IE for web, Eudora, Netscape, OE or PINE for e-mail, etc)
I'm a student at the University of Mass., Amherst and this is the first I've heard of it. Knowing the University, this plan would take years to design and implement.. the first freshman required to get computers would be starting at earliest, fall of 2002.
I'd be surprised if the Amherst campus had much say in proposing this one. Most students here already have a computer, I don't see the need for a school to require everyone to adopt some standard. Why do schools always require laptops? They're more expensive and harder to type on. Also, our connection is saturated with Napster traffic all the time. They'd better buy a bigger pipe if they're going to make everyone get a computer.
This just doesn't seem to fit in with what the school has done traditionally. UMass is a very cheap school, with cheap students. The state has been cutting funding to UMass lately.. I don't know if they'd pay a lot more for a new program such as this.
Just my two cents, as a bitter old student.. one thing's for sure, they'd better not require me to get a laptop.
This is all well and good, but I have one question: What is "boiled sweet"? It's listed as tied for the number one thing found in keyboards! I would assume this is some sort of British thing.. can anyone fill me in? Is it food?
If it's good enough to be the number one thing finding its way into British keyboards, someone could make a mint marketing this stuff to the US! Just think.. Put down that bag of chips! Throw away that sandwich! Why not enjoy a tasty boiled sweet instead?
Netware is a fine OS, even if you don't hear that much about it any more. It does what you want it to do reliably and quickly if you know what you're doing and know how to set it up. The problem is that Novell has always had marketing problems and has run into trouble getting their customers' requirements right. This is apparent when you look at their early attempts at supporting TCP/IP and the internet.
IBM is another company not known for being able to market great products.. look no further than OS/2, which beat Windows 3.1 in EVERY way except software compatibility at the time WARP was released.. it didn't catch on though, due in part to IBM's poor marketing.
Maybe it's just me, but I see problems when two companies which have trouble selling great products think of getting together.
you're not listening to anyone, you're just stating the same inaccuracies over and over. I never said that win9x doesn't run directly on the hardware. I actually SAID that it takes control of the hardware. Never mind, it's useless to have a pointless argument with someone who doesn't listen.
Of course Windows 95, 98, and yes, ME all run on top of DOS. Pay attention when a windows system boots. The boot loader in the MBR loads IO.sys, which runs in real mode. IO.sys is MS-DOS, and up until WinME it processed autoexec.bat and config.sys before loading Windows. What MS have done in ME is merely modify IO.sys so that autoexec.bat and config.sys aren't run, and they have made it so that you can't prevent win.com from being run on start-up. Also they just disabled exiting to DOS from explorer.
win.com is really just another DOS program. Like Windows 3.1, ALL windows up to WinME are just DOS programs. Of course they put the system into protected mode and do all the handling of hardware themselves, but this doesn't change the fact that they still run on top of DOS.
It's not really a bad thing - Netware runs on top of DOS, too.
Microsoft has long worked under the assumption that the physical medium is separate from the license. Isn't this how we run into problems such as OEMs that ship computers without Windows CDs? The idea of the select program has been that companies receive a set of CDs without any client licenses. Companies buy client access licenses as needed, with the knowledge that licenses come with no media or docs.
So what's the problem, then? Each PC ships with its own client license, which should entitle companies to use whatever copy of Win2k they feel like using, whether it's the pre-installed version, a ghost image, or a manual re-installation. There are plenty of good arguments for using Ghost and there is no reason to buy an additional license for separate versions of Windows. If MS is insisting that people do that, they should refund your money for the first license that you bought, or they should quit strong-arming OEMs into bundling Windows whether you need it or not. This is like the Toshiba windows refund issue.
I work at a university that participates in the Select program.. we've always operated under the assumption that we can use the select CDs on any machine that is licensed to run the software. If MS is saying otherwise, they'll have some pretty angry customers.
One other thing: There's an inaccuracy in the article: "Wiping off the software on the computer also voids any obligation on the part of the PC manufacturer to provide technical support." Not true. OEMs won't give you good software support anyway, and if the problem is hardware, then it's really none of their business what software you're running.
Slashdot Mirror
DVDs? Excuse me? I know of no seven line perl program that can rip a CD. DVDs, on the other hand...
seriously if all the record company "New media" guys have this level of genius, we have NOTHING to worry about.
--
It could have been a troll, who knows. Like I mentioned, the message is the same whether it is a troll or not. There are plenty of people, I'm sure, who share the belief that moderation is dangerously close to censorship. And it is up to us to silence those people. Just kidding.
--
Personally I disagree with your comment, but I would still mod it up. Sure, it could be a troll - but does this change your message? Should the poster's intent, as opposed to the actual content, matter? I will also respond to your arguments.
Your comment is flawed from top to bottom by the assumption that all media is, or will be controlled by corporate interests. It is true that corporations control a great deal of our media today, never mind in 20 years. This control does influence our culture more than any other factor. But did /. start out commercially? You seem to be assuming that no other moderated forums will ever pop up after /. and k5.
When enough people are fed up with corporate influence of one site, a new one will be created. Unless free speech on the Internet is stifled (I guess this could happen, though) there will always be a place to speak your mind and hear others' views without being subjected to countless trolls and goatse.cx links.
I am assuming that since you disagree with moderation, you browse at -1 and hide the scores on comments. As of this post, your comment is at 4. Like I said, while I disagree with your views I would never mod your comment down. Remember that moderation is a work in progress and is in its infancy. As long as the goal is to promote civil discussion without silencing anyone's viewpoints, moderation systems are really the only good solution.
At the bottom of any Yahoo! news story, you can "discuss" the story with your fellow netizens. Please visit a story there, preferably on a controversial or incendiary topic, and see what people are "discussing" there. You will find name-calling, racism, and downright ugliness in EVERY discussion you look at there. This, folks, is what we would have if not for moderation.
--
Not that I would subscribe to this kind of thing. With the rate that unique services like this are abandoned, I wouldn't want to be stuck with a $1,000 "cone-shaped antenna" that's only good for a paper weight. Just look at Iridium. Keeping a bunch of planes in the sky 24 hours a day isn't exactly low-maintenance service..
--
We all had visions that by the year 2000, HAL-9000 would be talking us through even the most complex computing tasks.. but here in 2001, if you want your text to wrap around a picture in Microsoft Word, you need a freakin' PAPER CLIP to talk you through the grueling ordeal.
If that isn't true innovation, well, I'm dumbfounded. It sure came out of left field, at least.
--
You have to pay court fees and pay for representation, obtain a court order for the ISP to give you contact info, and pay someone to serve the spammer with papers.
At this point, the judge may very well throw the case out unless you prove actual monetary damages. You can't put a sign on your door that says anyone who knocks on it has to pay $100, and I don't see this any differently.
Even assuming you win in court, the vast likelihood is you'll never get paid. It is now YOUR responsibility to collect your debt, the court will not help you at all. You will have to locate the spammer's assets and determine what can be seized, try to find their bank accounts, or garnish their wages.
All these hassles should dissuade most people from taking this course of action.
--
I wouldn't want someone to glue my Rolodex to my Stereo.. why would you want Sony to glue a Memory Stick player to a PDA?
--
The software that comes with the Memory stick audio players (music clip) will convert MP3 to ATRAC.. I'm sure they will bundle the same software with this unit. I've never used it, but I think I read that the software will convert your MP3's to ATRAC, and then it will delete your MP3's? The conversion process is also very time consuming. I understand Sony's need for a secure music format, but everything I've read about the memory stick players like the audio clip says it's a pain in the ass to get your MP3's onto the thing.
--
If ISPs don't help you track down the source of spam, then they will quickly find themselves on either MAPS or ORBS.
Wrong. ISPs are under no obligation to give you any information in order to stay out of the MAPS RBL. All they have to do is deal with spam problems, including killing spammers' accts, killing spamvertised web sites, not provide spam support services, etc. ORBS, as you apparently are unaware of, is an automated system for tracking open relays. ORBS has no information as to whether ISPs are cooperative or not. It doesn't even list ISPs that generate spam, only open relays.
ISPs aren't required by anyone to help you "track down the source of spam." Their only duty is to deal with spammers' accounts themselves. You even contradict yourself later on when you say "you are advocating a commercial entity supplies you with the names and addresses of it's customers?!! Pleaze". It is a huge invasion of privacy for any ISP to help you track down one of their customers. The problem is theirs to deal with, not yours. Unless there is a court order (I don't think small claims court can issue subpoenas) an ISP SHOULDN'T give you a spammer's name or address.
I'm real happy for you and your Asian ISP, but I hope you understand that's the exception, not the rule. I have LART'ed a LOT of spam from China, and have never received a personal response or a confirmed kill.
--
There have been bills that effectively legitimize spam, and ones that basically prevent it. HR 95, which is in committee right now, is a very good anti-spam bill.
--
Also, ISPs have no legal obligation to help you find a spammer's real name/address. They don't benefit from helping you at all, so why would they cooperate?
Also, this wouldn't work for mail sent through open relays (since the open relay sees your SMTP notice, not the actual spammer), or mail sent from other countries. How are you going to take a Chinese spammer to small claims court?
--
There have been plenty of flaws in Microsoft products that took the company a few months to publicly acknowledge, such as that nasty one where people could execute code using a buffer overflow in Outlook.. I guess they can use this secret society to communicate with partners about flaws without admitting their guilt to the world.
--
I know I'm replying to a troll, but plenty of people are serious when they write this kind of stuff.
1. You can't make a generalization of the /. audience. We're all individuals, and we don't all share the same views on every issue.
2. The Napster, DeCSS, spam, and GPL issues are only similar on a superficial level. Boiling my beliefs down to "information wants to be free" is a great oversimplification of the issues. Napster != spam. The fact that I believe Napster will ultimately result in a better variety of music for the consumer, as well as the demise of the record industry, doesn't force me to support spam! Spam is an invasion of my privacy, and an abuse of the public network, simple as that.
Don't label me a hypocrite because my opinions should either totally agree with "information wants to be free," or not agree with it at all.
--
This site advocates threatening spammers (telling them that you sent them a tarantula? excuse me?), and replying to spam, both of which should never be done. It also says you should threaten to mailbomb them. The information is outdated - this site talks about Cyber Promotions, which is long-dead. It also mentions some of the failed US spam bills as current legislation.
Finally, the site is against spam laws. While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, a vast majority of legitimate anti-spammers believe legislation is the answer, just like legislation is the answer to junk faxes and telephone harassment.
This really doesn't belong on slashdot. Can we have some sort of editorial discretion here, please?
--
AT&T Wireless bought Cellular One, not GTE.
--
I just ran these new sites through the search engine, and again Cyberpatrol claims it's not blocking the sites! They must monitor these reports really closely, and quickly remove sites from the list when there's a question about how appropriate it is to block them.
This all ties in with their refusal to let people browse the contents of their lists. You could claim they're practicing corporate censorship, but really it just looks like incompetence on their parts, since they are banning sites regardless of political party.
--
Between their general cluelessness about spam, and the whole patent fiasco, it's really not a good place to shop. They don't get my business.
This is an example that indicates a larger problem. Corporate spam is tough to deal with, becase ISPs are unwilling to enforce their AUP against large customers like online stores. Notable past and present corporate spammers include Amazon, Real, Insight (very bad), and MicroWarehouse.
--
There are many taxes we all pay, regardless of our income. These include sales taxes, excise (gasoline, liquor, cigarettes, etc), and don't forget the lottery! A disproportionate amount of poor people play the lottery (read: state-sponsored gambling) which accounts for a great deal of tax money for states.
When you look at the numbers, poorer people pay a much higher percentage of their income towards these taxes.
GWB's idea is broken and it's typical of old-style republican thinking. I'd be all for a candidate who wanted to end our unfair taxation of the poor.
--
I'm a UMass student. They would most likely support either Windows or MacOS. They allow you to use almost anything you want (there are many linux people here) but there is a very limited set of applications the helpdesk supports (Netscape or IE for web, Eudora, Netscape, OE or PINE for e-mail, etc)
--
I'd be surprised if the Amherst campus had much say in proposing this one. Most students here already have a computer, I don't see the need for a school to require everyone to adopt some standard. Why do schools always require laptops? They're more expensive and harder to type on. Also, our connection is saturated with Napster traffic all the time. They'd better buy a bigger pipe if they're going to make everyone get a computer.
This just doesn't seem to fit in with what the school has done traditionally. UMass is a very cheap school, with cheap students. The state has been cutting funding to UMass lately.. I don't know if they'd pay a lot more for a new program such as this.
Just my two cents, as a bitter old student.. one thing's for sure, they'd better not require me to get a laptop.
--
If it's good enough to be the number one thing finding its way into British keyboards, someone could make a mint marketing this stuff to the US! Just think.. Put down that bag of chips! Throw away that sandwich! Why not enjoy a tasty boiled sweet instead?
--
IBM is another company not known for being able to market great products.. look no further than OS/2, which beat Windows 3.1 in EVERY way except software compatibility at the time WARP was released.. it didn't catch on though, due in part to IBM's poor marketing.
Maybe it's just me, but I see problems when two companies which have trouble selling great products think of getting together.
--
you're not listening to anyone, you're just stating the same inaccuracies over and over. I never said that win9x doesn't run directly on the hardware. I actually SAID that it takes control of the hardware. Never mind, it's useless to have a pointless argument with someone who doesn't listen.
--
win.com is really just another DOS program. Like Windows 3.1, ALL windows up to WinME are just DOS programs. Of course they put the system into protected mode and do all the handling of hardware themselves, but this doesn't change the fact that they still run on top of DOS.
It's not really a bad thing - Netware runs on top of DOS, too.
--
So what's the problem, then? Each PC ships with its own client license, which should entitle companies to use whatever copy of Win2k they feel like using, whether it's the pre-installed version, a ghost image, or a manual re-installation. There are plenty of good arguments for using Ghost and there is no reason to buy an additional license for separate versions of Windows. If MS is insisting that people do that, they should refund your money for the first license that you bought, or they should quit strong-arming OEMs into bundling Windows whether you need it or not. This is like the Toshiba windows refund issue.
I work at a university that participates in the Select program.. we've always operated under the assumption that we can use the select CDs on any machine that is licensed to run the software. If MS is saying otherwise, they'll have some pretty angry customers.
One other thing: There's an inaccuracy in the article: "Wiping off the software on the computer also voids any obligation on the part of the PC manufacturer to provide technical support." Not true. OEMs won't give you good software support anyway, and if the problem is hardware, then it's really none of their business what software you're running.
--